So, general anti FBW ranting aside, at which point do you suppose the FCS overrode the pilot's input, causing or contributing to the accident?
As the A/C was supposedly in Alt Law (ADR Disagree) there would have been NO FCS inputs to cause the pitch up, they are inhibited.
RWA
Both Boeing and Airbus modified their 'stall avoidance' procedures soon after AF447 went in; the drill now is 'adjust power but don't necessarily use full power, concentrate first on getting the nose down.'
The manufacturers and regulators re-emphasized the Stall Recovery Procedure not because of AF 447 but because of various other stalls on both Airbus / Boeing and other types. Too much emphasis had been put on minimum height loss with some "instructors"/ schools actually saying use "back" stick to reduce height loss!!!! The UK CAA have just issued a Safety Notice to that effect on the 13th July 2011.
Again, the PF appears to have 'done the right thing,' countered the zoom-climb with forward stick and pretty well levelled the aeroplane out again.
BEA report
The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied
between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
However, if you read the BEA report quoted, the inputs made were then nose up and more than likely caused the THS to move, then when the AOA increased above 30 degrees or the speed dropped below 60 kts - no more autotrim.
At 2 h 10 min 51 , the stall warning was triggered again. The thrust levers were positioned in the TO/GA detent and the PF maintained nose-up inputs. The recorded angle of attack, of around 6 degrees at the triggering of the stall warning, continued to increase. The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight. Around fifteen seconds later, the speed displayed on the ISIS increased sharply towards 185 kt; it was then consistent with the other recorded speed. The PF continued to make nose-up inputs. The airplane’s altitude reached its maximum of about 38,000 ft, its pitch attitude and angle of attack being 16 degrees.The altitude was then about 35,000 ft, the angle of attack exceeded 40 degrees and the vertical speed was about -10,000 ft/min. The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%. The airplane was subject to roll oscillations that sometimes reached 40 degrees. The PF made an input on the sidestick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds.